To John Key from Maureen C 24 May 2010

Good afternoon

We watched with interest your interview with Paul Henry on Breakfast this morning and quote from a letter written by Muriel Newman to you on 19 May:
"The reality is that while New Zealand’s comprehensive “all gases, all sectors” ETS will generate a significant income flow for the government, it will seriously damage our economy. In comparison, the European Union's ETS targets just 43 percent of industrial emissions, excluding the transport sector which generates 21 percent of EU emissions, the household and small business sector which generates 17 percent, agriculture which generates 10 percent, and construction and waste which generate 9 percent. Furthermore, the EU scheme is based solely on carbon dioxide - methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons, which make up 48 percent of the European Union's greenhouse gas profile, are all excluded."
Do you dispute these comments and stand by your comments to Paul Henry that the EU ETS is inclusive of petrol, electricity etc. given that your original comment was that 'all' included petrol and then 'the vast bulk'  what is it Mr Key, 'all' or 'the vast bulk'.  Are you prepared to issue a press statement to the effect that the assertions made by Muriel Newman are incorrect and explain why. 
We also quote from Muriel Newman's newsletter dated 24 May.  If these figures are incorrect, will you also issue a press statement to that effect and explain the discrepancies, if any.  If not why not. 
" The budget appropriations to the ‘Vote Climate Change’ amount to an astonishing $1.085 billion of taxpayers’ money. This include $29 million for a national carbon accounting system, $12 million for policy advice on the Kyoto Protocol and Emissions Trading Scheme, $1.034 billion for emission units, $300,000 to the Climate Change Development Fund for international projects, $127,000 for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, $8 million for Permanent Forest Sink Initiative participants, and over $2 million to purchase emissions units from the Project to Reduce Emissions (PRE).
In addition, there are substantial emissions trading scheme related costs within ‘Vote Agriculture and Forestry’ that are included within the $75 million appropriation which covers among other things the implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme and indigenous forestry provisions, and the $10 million appropriation that includes expenses for climate change research and related matters.
In ‘Vote Energy’, a $33 million appropriation includes “the implementation of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme and associated emissions unit register”, and the $100 million Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Start Programme is a direct cost arising from the Kyoto Protocol.
There are millions of dollars worth of ‘smaller’ appropriations associated with the emissions trading scheme that are buried deep within the budget’s fine print – like the $4 million in the Ministry of Economic Development’s budget and around $1 million associated with the Ministry of the Environment’s carbon accounting system.
Included in this round-up will be the cost of carbon auditing that will need to be carried out by all government agencies, as well as the on-going costs associated with jetting armies of government officials around the world over the next 12 months in pursuit of their mission to reduce carbon emissions.
So all in all, a conservative estimate is that the up-front cost associated with the emissions trading scheme is in the region of $1.5 billion. With the increase in GST expected to raise around $1.59 billion, if the emissions trading scheme was cancelled, there would be no need to increase GST. There would also be a further saving of $420 million, as the compensation increases in government income support payments would not need to go ahead.
And that’s not all. To see what an utter waste of taxpayers’ money it is spending $1.5 billion on emissions trading scheme costs, one need look no further than Treasury’s website where New Zealand’s status with regards to our Kyoto Protocol liabilities is listed: “The estimate of New Zealand’s position at 31 March 2010 is a $NZ231 million net asset - based on an underlying price of 10.75 Euro.”
In other words, $1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money will be poured into a big black hole because the country has been in a credit position for well over 12 months and looks like staying that way until 2012 when any liabilities are due (not that any of that matters anyway, because no mechanism was ever put in place to collect any money that a country might owe once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012)!"
Our final question at this stage is, if New Zealand will supposedly face trade barriers if we do not instigate an ETS, why is it that the US, China, Canada, and Australia etc are not facing the same barriers.
It would be interesting to receive your comments,  this email is addressed to you and not to Nick Smith or any other spin doctor.
As you will see we have copied this to your Party President, we believe it is important he is aware of the depth of feeling in New Zealand over this issue.  If, as has been widely reported, the majority of your Cabinet is also at odds with this legislation, why are you jeopardising all the good work National has and can potentially do for the sake of this ludicrous campaign.
Maureen and Dennis C
Error | Climate Realists


The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.